Praising Brown For His Flaws

In an extraordinary piece on how Gordon Brown’s egregious flaws are actually the reason why he has managed to cling on to power, The Independent’s Steve Richards seems to be reveling in the idea that Brown being a wanker is why he is still Prime Minister. Now, a better – or more patient – blogger might care to dissect the whole article. I can make my point just by fisking two paragraphs.

There is a pattern here. When Brown was Chancellor, a thousand voices predicted at certain key moments that he would never be Prime Minister.

Only a thousand? I’d have thought there would have been tens of thousands of voices all claiming that Brown would never be Prime Minister. Some out of hope, some out of fear, some out of a sense of incredulity that someone so incapable and unsuited could be considered a potential PM, let alone actually taking on the role.

A thousand theories accompanied the voices. He was Scottish. He was too openly disloyal to Tony Blair. He was so obviously useless.

All of which is true, but only the last reason should really be a barrier to becoming PM.

When he became Prime Minister the chorus moved on to predicting his demise before the general election.

Mainly because he has, as Prime Minister, been shit and… well, useless.

He is about to lead the party's campaign.

Hopefully to defeat and all.

How has he survived for so long at the top of British politics, at least since 1992 when he was made shadow chancellor, if he is this deranged, bullying incompetent who cannot communicate and has no strategic skills?

I’ve emphasised the crucial word – more on that later.

Part of the answer relates to stamina, appetite for politics and thick-skinned durability. There are not many people who could put up with such assaults on their character.

Does Brown really possess a thick skin? And does he really put up with assaults on his character? If he does have such a thick skin, then why did he employ the compellingly vile Damian McBride to bully people on this behalf? And why are we hearing so many stories about Brown flinging mobiles at people who bring him bad news? Raging like a baby in a tantrum when encountering criticism is not the behaviour of someone with a thick skin or who is putting up with character attacks in a stoic way.

Evidently Brown wants to keep going even if that means facing a daily hell of abuse.

Yeah, this is probably true, but is also true of many other politicians. In fact, putting up with regular abuse should be one of the criteria on the job spec. Because while Richards might be wanting us to feel sorry for Brown, the truth is that he gets the normal amount of abuse for someone in his position. Certainly, the sort of abuse he gets is easily comparable to the amount that Major got when he was PM. And Cameron – Brown’s would be nemesis – gets a fair share of abuse to, particularly given Cameron’s supposed status as a toff. Just to put the cherry on the cake, much of the abuse thrown at Major and Cameron comes not only from the party Brown leads, but also from Brown himself. Yes, Brown puts up with abuse. It may even be a “daily hell” owing to the thinness of his skin. But it is the sort of abuse that he is perfectly happy to dole out to others as well.

If he did not want to do so he has had more opportunities than most to give up.

This is a bit of a nonsense statement. Of course Brown has had opportunities to give up – every day is an opportunity. He could end this supposed misery by tendering his resignation right now. The same is true of any wealthy man with a great pension plan to fall back on. Brown hasn’t had more opportunities than most people (in his position). He can give up any time he wants.

What Richards is probably referring to, though, is the number of coup attempts Brown has suffered during his relatively brief time as PM. And it is true that Brown has had more attempts to depose him than most Prime Ministers. But the crucial factor that has to be taken into account is the quality of those coups. Aside from the fact that they were shit and going nowhere, did any of them really offer Brown the chance to stand down with even an iota of dignity? I mean, who on earth could bring themselves to stand down as the result of a coup led by Hewitt and Hoon?

Quite clearly, one of the reasons why Brown has been able to stay in power is because his opponents have been utterly, utterly shite.

The other reason is, of course, Brown himself – he is a bully and he is manipulative. He spent his time in Number 11 carefully crafting the narrative that he was not only the natural successor to Blair, but the only one. When the end for Blair actually came, the Labour party could not think of any alternative to Brown. And the bullying – Brown’s attack monkeys, and his rages - mean that anyone who might even try to control or even oppose him cannot. Far more than Blair, Brown has broken the Labour party. He has made it into a cowed shadow of a political organization – the political extension of his own schizophrenic ego.

Brown has survived; he may yet confound expectation and win the next election (although I strongly doubt that). However, his survival is down to anything other than positive reasons – his bullying and the incompetence of his colleagues.